Lawmakers’ Farm Subsidies Draw Focus

By Corey Boles

Fifteen members of Congress received federal agricultural subsidies in 2012, according to data released Friday, mostly from a program that could soon be eliminated by legislation now before the Senate.

The federal payments to the lawmakers—13 Republicans and two Democrats—ranged from $339 to Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R., Texas) to $70,574 to Rep. Stephen Fincher (R., Tenn.). The data were released by the Environmental Working Group, a liberal research group, based on an analysis of data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The payments to all but two of the lawmakers were well above the average of $604 paid to the lowest-subsidized 80% of farmers between 1995 and 2012, the group said. The group eliminates the largest 20% of farm payments in its average, saying their size skews the result. Agricultural subsidies are awarded based on a farm’s acreage and crop yields of previous years.

Most of the lawmakers got the payments because either they or their spouse owns an interest in a family farm. The farm owned by Mr. Fincher and his wife, Lynn, is in Halls, Tenn.

The release of the data comes as Senate lawmakers look to start floor debate this coming week on a farm bill that authorizes $1 trillion in spending over 10 years and reauthorizes a range of federal agricultural policies, including payments and subsidies to farmers, as well as funding for renewable energy and conservation programs.

The Senate bill would end direct payments to farmers, a decades-old program that sends money to certain farmers regardless of their farm’s current crop yield, market prices or the farmer’s economic circumstances.

The Senate bill envisions many farmers shifting to federal crop-insurance programs, which generally provide protection against adverse weather conditions, such has floods or drought. A small but growing number of farmers also purchase insurance providing protection against loss of revenue.

Backers of the bill say this would lead to a more market-based system, where farmers receive federal assistance when times are tough.

The lion’s share of spending authorized in the bill would go to nutrition programs for lower-income Americans, known as food stamps. A clash between the House and Senate over the nutrition funding seems likely, as the Senate would pare the cost of the program by $4 billion over a decade, compared with $20 billion in cuts approved by the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Fincher and another House Republican who received farm payments, Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California, are members of the agriculture panel. Both voted for the House version of the farm bill, including the food-stamp cut, when the panel considered it in May. Like the Senate legislation, the House bill would wind down direct payments to farmers while making changes to other programs offering support to farmers.

According to the Environmental Working Group data, Mr. LaMalfa received $62,857 in federal farm-subsidy payments last year, the second-highest amount of any lawmaker.

In a statement released by his office, Mr. Fincher said that farm programs are “in need of major reform. I voted immediately to remove direct payments.” A spokesman for Mr. LaMalfa said the lawmaker has long opposed the farm-subsidy system and voted to end direct payments.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), one of two Democratic senators to receive farm payments, got $2,107 last year, according to the group’s data. A spokesman for Mr. Bennet said the senator donated the money to charity.

The figures from the Environmental Working Group don’t include federal payments toward farmers’ cost of crop insurance, which isn’t released publicly by the federal government.

This is the first time the group released data for a single year. Previously, it released data cumulatively for subsidies received by lawmakers since 1995.